All reviews are subjective, of course :) (Personally, I think that they wouldn't be fun to read otherwise!)

Nonetheless I tried to limit this:

First, I awarded only component scores, not overall scores. The overall scores (including category scores) are just a mathematical average of the individual scores. I found that personally, biases were greatly lessened when I was grading IEMs in minute categories, like 'Mids Detail', since even with one's favourite signature one can sometimes find specific things to dislike. So I graded IEMs again and again across different criteria, and had no idea what the final scores would be until I'd gone through every single criteria. A good indication of what kind of effect this had- when I was asked by friends initially to rate them in order of general preference, I found myself ranking them in an order that ended up being very different from the final results I'm posting in Fit for a Bat.

Second, I scored them relatively. Obviously this was only possible because I had a wide range of great IEMs to set up comparative benchmarks with, and for that I must say I'm really lucky. Often times differences only revealed themselves when I did direct AB comparisons between IEMs. So I would listen to one and go, 'hmm, IEM x has pretty detailed mids'. Then I'd listen to IEM y, and go, 'well, this is just slightly better ain't it?'. This is important because it means that I couldn't just listen to one IEM, decide I like it a lot, and then proceed to give it really good scores for every component. Nosir. Each score was awarded, one component at a time, only after comparing against every other IEM in the shootout.

Hope this clarifies! I always wondered if my first post glossed over this a bit too much, but well, I ultimately decided nobody wants to read too much into the fine print :)

Whatever your method, thank you for throwing piles of money at people so we could have a good read! You are quite the gentleman.

All reviews are subjective, of course :) (Personally, I think that they wouldn't be fun to read otherwise!)

Nonetheless I tried to limit this:

First, I awarded only component scores, not overall scores. The overall scores (including category scores) are just a mathematical average of the individual scores. I found that personally, biases were greatly lessened when I was grading IEMs in minute categories, like 'Mids Detail', since even with one's favourite signature one can sometimes find specific things to dislike. So I graded IEMs again and again across different criteria, and had no idea what the final scores would be until I'd gone through every single criteria. A good indication of what kind of effect this had- when I was asked by friends initially to rate them in order of general preference, I found myself ranking them in an order that ended up being very different from the final results I'm posting in Fit for a Bat.

Second, I scored them relatively. Obviously this was only possible because I had a wide range of great IEMs to set up comparative benchmarks with, and for that I must say I'm really lucky. Often times differences only revealed themselves when I did direct AB comparisons between IEMs. So I would listen to one and go, 'hmm, IEM x has pretty detailed mids'. Then I'd listen to IEM y, and go, 'well, this is just slightly better ain't it?'. This is important because it means that I couldn't just listen to one IEM, decide I like it a lot, and then proceed to give it really good scores for every component. Nosir. Each score was awarded, one component at a time, only after comparing against every other IEM in the shootout.

Hope this clarifies! I always wondered if my first post glossed over this a bit too much, but well, I ultimately decided nobody wants to read too much into the fine print :)

Hi,

thanks for your reply. Please I don't want to make all confusing, but for me an objective ranking is not possible and I understand your idea behind (which is really great), I believe that you want to be as most neutral as possible with your ranking, but still too different IEMs in your comparison with too different qualities and sound signatures.

Again I really like your short and detailed writing of your IEMs here, more useful than a "10000 words" review from other guys. I really appreciate your work, can't wait to read more ;-)

Deffinetly lovin the CT-6E. Im suprized the JH13FP didnt do as well in the treble I was under the impression is was more treble heavy.

I have a JH13pro and while I don't agree with everything said in the review I think the assessment of treble quality was a good one. Yes, there's a lot of treble but with some recordings it can be a little fatiguing. The extension is there but it's not always smooth.

BTW, for those waiting for a Legend R review- not going to happen anymore, sorry. My Legend has been converted to the Omega, and will probably be in Fit for a Bat 2 along with some others that didn't make it this time around.

Interesting to read these reviews, great reviews. Not many can make direct comparisons between so many CIEMs, and with direct comparisons the differences in sound between the CIEMs become clearer. At least to me.

You seem to like you prefer a bit more bass than I do, but at least from your detailed descriptions and the comparisons, I can make an educated guess which CIEMs would match my preference most closely.

You seem to like you prefer a bit more bass than I do, but at least from your detailed descriptions and the comparisons, I can make an educated guess which CIEMs would match my preference most closely.

Great read man, I'm checking theheadphonelist daily do see if a new review has come out. That was before I discovered the head fi thread :)

Just wondering, I don't know if it's my personal interpretation but your review of the H8P kinda seemed to crush it.. I was interested before, almost made an offer on a second hand pair, but stumbled on your review and immediately lost interest after. Especially the part about it sounding thin.. If there's one thing I learned from the IE800, is that I don't like thin sounding iems. Do you overall still think it's a good ciem?

"Thin" sounding is not always a bad thing, you should consider this two points.

A) "thin" sounding mostly is natural sounding, so not emotional sounding IEM, really flat reference monitor tuning, but with special treble (this apply on H8P). But I agree because B) this is not the taste of all this flat tuning, so for some they sound to "thin" sure, they need a more V-shaped or stronger sounding IEM, which is no problem. It's what I said at the beginning, a ranking is not possible under objective points.

You can get a universal demo unit from Piotr to try the H8P before you order, I did the same and now I'm happy.

Hey man, I totally agree with you. Thin does not mean bad. Thickness comes at the sacrifice of detail and instrument separation, I'd say they're opposites on a spectrum. Thinner sounding iems usually provide great detail, pinpoint instrument separation and a great stage. But when it comes at too great a cost of note impact, I find it very hard to fall in love with an iem. I've had the IE800 and the Rhapsodio Rti1. But this is purely personal preference, based on my music taste. For say classical or jazz it might be great, but less so for rock and EDM (IMO). But I don't know if that's the case with the H8P of course, I've never heard it.

Great read man, I'm checking theheadphonelist daily do see if a new review has come out. That was before I discovered the head fi thread :)

Just wondering, I don't know if it's my personal interpretation but your review of the H8P kinda seemed to crush it.. I was interested before, almost made an offer on a second hand pair, but stumbled on your review and immediately lost interest after. Especially the part about it sounding thin.. If there's one thing I learned from the IE800, is that I don't like thin sounding iems. Do you overall still think it's a good ciem?

Welcome! :) Yes, I absolutely do think they're great. But if you don't like thin-sounding IEMs, then I think you might be better placed looking elsewhere...